If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You know that Pelosi, Waxman and the other gangstas who want to ram this thing through the House have to be clapping their little cloven hooves in glee that there's been a myriad of juicy news stories that have taken Cap and Tax...errr Trade off the front page...Sanford's MIA/affair, Farrah, and now Michael Jackson. They'll pass it late on a Friday for the standard end-of-the-newsweek crap dump, hoping that it doesn't get much press over the weekend, and then unload it on to the Senate's lap. As KG said, it is supposedly and thankfully DOA once it hits the Senate.

Your quote from above sounds just like the Obama administration. The take over of the auto industry, the forced take over of the banking system. Threatening the banks to buy unwanted assets. The firing or the threat firing corporate CEOs. The take over of the health care system. Attempting to shift charity contributions away from private donations to a government system. Control of the energy sector through cap and trade. The list goes on and on.

On the other hand what was fascist about Bush. Lets see "deregulation" nope. Free trade, nope, maybe spying on our enemy.
Under your definition I don't see it but maybe in your infinite wisdom you can explain it to all of us simpletons.

Forced take over of the banking system: If you mean the TARP program, you may want to check which administration issued the the first $750 billion in funds. If you mean attaching conditions to continued support, I'm glad they started doing that as opposed to simply throwing money into the pot.

Threatening banks to buy unwanted assets: Any specific examples?

Firing corporate CEO's: I'm not sure what ones you are talking about. AIG's CEO was forced out of by the Fed before the 2008 election. Management changes and bank closures have been required by the Comptroller of the Currency ever since the first banking acts were passed during the depression. The Reagan and first Bush administrations actually saw a Federally managed liquidation of almost the entire savings and loan industry during the 1980's following a bankruptcy of many banks as a direct result of idiotic and highly risky investment strategies implemented in response to Reagan inspired deregulation. The only unusual thing done in this instance was the adoption of compensation controls by Congress. Those were actually initially opposed by Obama who only began giving them luke warm support in response to overwhelming public demands following the AIG bonuses handed out at public expense.

Take over of health care: It certainly hasn't happened yet and it is not part of any of the bills being considered. Please provide references to any legislation or statement suggesting that the government is seeking to take over health care.

Attempting to shift charitable donations to government control: Any examples? I'm sure you are not simply discussing tax deductibility for charitable contributions since those rules have changed repeatedly over time with some of the biggest reductions in tax preferences occurring as part of the Reagan tax reform package (Was he a fascist?).

Cap and Trade: One of the fundamental "flaws" in the "free market" is that not all costs or benefits are accounted for in economic transactions. For example, if you buy a house across the street from a beautiful park, the value that you pay for your house is greater because of the presence of the park. If a developer buys the park from you town and builds a giant big box mall, the value of your house will tank. Should you be compensated for that loss? If you build a plant next to my house and begin spewing massive amounts of pollution into the air, making muy house uninhabitable, should you be required to pay damages? It is appropriate in any economy for regulations to be used to try to incorporate some of these "externalities" (the economic term for thee effects) into the transaction. The best way to do that without otherwise affecting the free market is by placing a price on those effects that must be paid by the party making the economic decisions. Cap and trade is fundamentally a way to do that. It begins from scientific findings that carbon emissions are injuring all of us. It provides a market driven vehicle for pricing those emissions in a manner that will give producers of emissions economic incentives for modifying their practices. From an economic perspective, this is much better than simply imposing regulations that limit emissions since it allows the free market the ability to determine the value of continuing to emit carbon pollutants. Will it have an economic impact? Absolutely. But then, the emissions also have a direct economic impact that is not being paid by the polluters. My asthma medications cost several thousand per year and are largely attributable to industrial pollution. The death of trees in the Smokies is directly affected by carbon releases from coal driven utilities in Ohio. The cancer rate in Allentown PA, near where I live, is several times higher than the rest of the country because of carbon emissions. Why shouldn't polluters have greater financial responsibility for the damages caused? This is certainly a valid question for debate. Condemning action as fascism is, as I said earlier, simply a way to use name calling as a substitute for reason.

I think we've come close a few times in our history. Certainly the attacks by Senator Joe McCarthy and his ilk smacked of fascism, and Johnson and Nixon's efforts to suppress anti-war efforts smacked of fascism. Similarly, the Bush/Cheney efforts to extend Presidential power smacked of fascism. Happily, however, we as a country have always proven to be too unruly to accept the notion of an authoritarian government despite the efforts of those suffering delusions of imminent invasion and subversion to scare us in that direction.

Personally, I do not believe in according our government too much respect and deference no matter who is in charge. Having worked in government, I know how easy it is to fall in love with power and to begin thinking that your job is to save people from themselves. I am not afraid of those who state their legislative desires publicly and fight for them legislatively. I am afraid of those who withhold information for our own good and take actions secretly "on our behalf" because procedures for democratically based decision making are too cumbersome or might "weaken" us. In my mind, anyone doing that from a position of governmental power is moving us towards fascism.

By contrast, the proposals on cap and trade were a clear part of the campaign platform of the candidate and party that won support from a majority of voters in the last election. The bills introduced have been publicly developed and openly debated. They will pass in some form or fail to pass. That is democracy in action, not fascism.

Imagine for one second that our VP, Joe Biden, formed this energy policy behind locked doors with the shades pulled down, with leading corporate CEOs and representatives, then refused to release transcripts even under court order (or congressional oversight order), then those same corporations posted all-time record profits in the history of man-kind. If that's too much to imagine, just change the name to Vice Pres. Cheney, and you don't have to imagine. It just happened!

I don't like this new bill either, but it was formulated and discussed in the public forum. I suggest all of us who disagree with it, rather than write on this forum, write your congressman, and it won't become law.

With the work of James Watts and his volunteers we've learned that the majority of stations in the USHCN are poorly sited and are providing poor information. To this point his group has surveyed roughly 70% of the weather station network and 78% of those stations provide temperature readings that are off by more than 2 degrees F.

Unfortunately it passed. The impact if it passes the Senate will be permanent damage to the economic system of the country and a blow to State and individual rights. A 1200 page bill with a 300 page amendment that was delivered to Congress at 3:00 A.M. today 14 hours before the vote, now that is "transparency" and a "new era of government" to quote the current President and Speaker of the House!

Just another huge bill they want to get passed before anyone has a chance to read and debate.

All the while the news media will fiddle.

The freedom to discriminate is essential to personal Liberty. Life in a free country is about being free to make choices based on your own criteria rather then one mandate by the government...Libertarian blogger